Green - An environmentalist community

It requires significantly more agriculture to feed animals to feed humans than to just feed humans directly. This is actually obvious if you think about it for more than a second and a half.

Not equally so

Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

[...]

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html

Mods please ban this shill.

Either completely illiterate or an animal ag shill, or ai bot.

Yes, but animals require significantly more resources. You can grow plants to eat, or you can grow plants for a cow to eat and then eat it. The amount of energy that reaches the consumer is significantly lower for animals per unit of production required to make it. The only reason it isn't more expensive is because it's heavily subsidized.

True.

Have you yourself read or looked through publications on this question and formed your own opinion? If so, what is it that you think, and what is it based on?

what's your evidence that it isn't evidence?